Dedicated to the return to the constitution as written by our forefathers, The return of common sense in our laws, the return of morality in our
Decisions, and the proliferation of environmental truth.

1995 – EPA Asbesto-Gate Cover-Up Charged

1995 – EPA Asbesto-Gate Cover-Up Charged

“The saddest element” in the “strange tale” of asbestos “is that schools have spent too many of their scarce education dollars chasing a phantom problem,” a school board spokeswoman told a Congressional committee considering a risk assessment bill Feb. 1.

“Every one of those dollars was taken away from the resources needed to create the World-class schools this country says it wants,” Barbara Wheeler, representing the 95,000 members of the National School Boards Association, told the House Commerce Committee. Her testimony, reflecting the considered opinion of the largest number of elected and appointed local officials in the country, vindicated EPA critics the agency successfully ignored until then – and could have profound political impact. The Commerce Committee is considering a risk assessment bill, which could prevent such debacles in the future. Ninety five percent of the asbestos removed, the chrysotile variety, “is as harmless as ordinary dust,” Wheeler, a member of the school board in Dupage County, IL told the committee. The same committee was responsible in 1986 for the passage of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA).

“We were not given any of this information when we passed AHERA,” Rep. Billy Tauzin (D-LA.), a member of the committee at the time said and a conservative Democrat who is a strong supporter of the property rights movement. Rep. Henry Waxman (D.-CA) and Rep. Ed­ward Markey (D.-MA), who were also members at the time and still advocate the no-safe-level of exposure to carcinogens, conspicuously ignored Mrs. Wheeler’s testimony. So did Rep. John Dingell (D.-MI), the longtime chairman of the committee under the Democrats, who along with Waxman and Markey criticized risk assessment as “a one size fits all approach” insufficiently protect the public’s health? Mrs. Wheeler, however, quoted Dingell as having said three years ago:

“It’s increasingly apparent that there’s something fundamentally wrong with much of the science underlying our environmental health regulations, as we’ve seen in recent episodes with asbestos…. where the risks have been dramatically over­stated at immense cost to the public.”

Mrs. Wheeler also quoted former EPA Administrator William Reilly as coming “close” in 1990 “to admitting that his organization was responsible for a significant environmental error … admitt(ing) that much of EPA’s work on asbestos was, at best, riddled with errors and had proven unnecessarily expensive.”

That unnecessary expense is also being scrutinized by the sub­committee on appropriations for EPA, headed by Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX). A measure to eliminate all spending – “zero out” – expenditures for asbestos removal in all federal buildings unless airborne asbestos levels are higher than the standard set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is being contemplated. The measure is patterned on a Michigan law passed in June of 1993 sponsored by John Schwartz, who is a medical doctor as well as a state senator. If passed, it would be a model for the states and provide private building owners with a legal precedent supporting decisions to employ “pro-active asbestos management” programs for asbestos as recommended but never widely publicized by EPA in its 1991 “Green Book.”

Mrs. Wheeler’s testimony was such a searing indictment of EPA’s failure to assess asbestos real risks, its evasion of responsibility and cover up of its mistakes, that it should be widely circulated. Hers is a tale with a simple and unequivocal moral: “Never again.”

“The NSBA enthusiastically endorses accurate and understand­able risk-assessment practices. This testimony will begin where schools were first introduced to environmental issues – with asbestos….

“The asbestos saga began in 1982 when EPA accepted the claims of the environmental movement’ that there can be no safe level of exposure to a carcinogen’ or in the case of asbestos -‘one fiber can kill.’ There was no accurate assessment of the risks. The agency accepted a scientifically discredited four-year-old study predicting asbestos was a low-level carcinogen, and would cause as many as 40,000 “excess deaths” per year. The study was based on the experience of World War II shipyard workers who worked with extremely high levels of asbestos, and those results were extrapolated down to low exposures to the public.

The EPA used this study despite evidence that the actual asbestos deaths were no more than 520 (a year) at the highest point and was falling sharply as they died of natural causes. EPA also ignored its own scientific review of the study. EPA’s own scientific panel denounced the study as “unconvincing,” “greatly overestimated,” “scientifically unappealing” and “absurd.”

“Unfortunately early researchers failed to distinguish between the two kinds of asbestos – one scientists now recognize as being as harmless as ordinary dust and the other potentially lethal. The harmless variety, known as chrysotile, or white asbestos, accounts 95% all of the asbestos used in the United States. (Ed’s Note: Chrysotile is mined in North America) No one has ever produced evidence that white asbestos can hurt, let alone kill. In fact, in 1988, scholars at a Harvard University symposium announced that a person has a 300% better chance of being killed by lightning than dying from asbestos exposure.

“These figures are not true of the dangerous asbestos, known as amphiboles. (Ed’s Note: mined only in South Africa and was imported during the war due to shortages of American asbestos). Unfortunately the federal laws governing asbestos removal treat harmless asbestos the same as (Ed’s Note: Chrysotile is mined in North America) (Ed’s Note: Chrysotile is mined in North America) dangerous (asbestos).

“The original plan, as stated by former EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus was to use this flawed scientific understanding ‘to get the mothers to form a vigilante mob to storm the school committee.’ Unfortunately, this strategy is alive and well (emphasis supplied), despite our more developed scientific understanding.

“The saddest element to this strange tale is that asbestos removal will cost this country’s schools S 10 billion; schools have spent too many of their scarce education dollars chasing a phantom problem. Every one of these dollars was taken from the scant resources needed to create the world-class schools this country says it wants. Every dollar is taken away from providing additional teachers, access to computers, and, in some school districts, funds to repair the roof and purchase enough textbooks.

“Possibly the most disturbing recent asbestos debacle was in New York City just a year and a half ago. In fall 1993, the schools of New York City remained closed even after the school year was to have begun. The school buildings were being reinspected for the presence of asbestos containing material.

“During the summer ‘parents had stormed the school board’ and forced the closure of the schools for asbestos work and the expenditure of $119 million. The parents’ effectiveness cannot be questioned. I only ask whether the course of action was a wise one.

“A well-regarded article from the Journal of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology published last year, entitled Asbestos in New York City’s Public Schools – Public Policy: Is There a Scientific Basis?, ‘concluded that ‘the calculated risk to NYC school children, using the most pessimistic models, was less than six cancer deaths per million lifetimes, equivalent to smoking less than a dozen cigarettes in a lifetime.

“The NYC administration responded to pressure from parent groups concerned with perceived asbestos risks to their children by closing the schools. The hysteria occurred because much of EPA’s policy lacked a scientific basis for risk evaluation and assessment. The article went on to articulate that whatever danger existed came from the removal of asbestos, and the consequent release of asbestos fibers.

“Last year, Warwick, Rhode Island went through a similar crisis. The second largest school district in Rhode Island spent $3 mil­lion in 14 schools to clean up what many regarded as an infinitesimal risk. Mayor Lincoln D. Chafee and a number of experts characterize the entire episode as a vast overreaction to a virtually negligible health risk and a terrific waste of money. (Ed’s Note: Sen. John H. Chafee, chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is the father of Mayor Chaffee, is expected to oppose any risk assessment bill which comes over from the House) James Celenza, executive director of the Rhode Island Committee on Occupational Safety and Health, said he saw no rational reason for the hysteria in Warwick.

“He said the city should let its janitors clean up the schools, and use the $3 million for something really useful like early childhood intervention programs. Nevertheless, the hysteria and breakdown of trust between the schools, parents, and the community has led Superintendent Henry Tarlian to say he will soon announce a plan to remove every bit of asbestos from every school in the system. `Once it is removed, our schools will be free of asbestos and we will no longer have to worry.’

“The schools in New York City and Warwick are excellent examples of the results of legislation predicated on bad risk assessment that was never corrected. Unfortunately, EPA was unwilling to step forward in either situation to correct public fears and to tell the parents of New York City and Warwick school children what they (EPA) had written many times – the risk of cancer increases with asbestos removal.

“The formulation of public policy on the asbestos issue was ahead of the scientific evidence to establish an accurate risk assessment,” Mrs. Wheeler concluded, “the result was, billions of scarce educational dollars were wasted. Schools cannot afford to abate questionable environmental hazards, ‘abate them in an unnecessary way or abate them down to a level that is beyond a reasonable risk.”

One of the other witnesses, Dr. Ellen Silbergeld of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), started to make a comment about asbestos in schools during the hearing, but was distracted. Afterwards, she was asked what she wanted to say. “I just wanted to observe the states didn’t do a very good job either,” she said. She was apparently unaware EPA didn’t provide either the states or school boards with either scientific information about asbestos or clear policies for dealing with the material. The fact that EPA’s policies are also made by lawyers rather than scientists, as acknowledged by the agency’s own report, Safeguarding the Future, also contributed to the debacle, she was told. So, too, was the fact that environmental groups such as EDF are also run by lawyers, with scientists only contributing backup support for predetermined positions. “That’s a recipe for a racket,” she was told. She didn’t respond. §

Normality in Society

“To be successful any society must establish the parameters for what is “normal” behavior. Liberals have blurred the parameters to such an extent that nothing is considered abnormal behavior.

“In every society there are also percentages that are genius, above average, average, below average, idiots and imbecile’s. We have achieved, via various “rights” propositions, a society where the imbecile’s, idiot’s and below average are in positions of authority. They have infiltrated our entertainment, our schools, our universities, and our government. They are typically called Liberals. It’s time to right our ship.”

You Know The Rules

Speak Up America, SUAnews, C Howard Diaz, SUAnews.com, and the logo/avatar is protected by copyright, use is not permitted. Suanews/SUA is not responsible for any comments made by members of the DisQus comment system or any other system. When you comment or post on the Speak Up America or the SUAnews.com website or blog page you are agreeing any of your material deemed vulgar and/or offensive may be used as evidence against you in any court of law. When posting on SUA you also agree the moderator may edit your comment as he see’s fit. You also agree anything you post or email to SUA may be used by the owner of SUA as he sees fit. This is a privately owned website and you are a guest when you post. Your guest status may be revoked by the owner at his discretion.

You know the rules, they are the same as any other honest blog site so keep it clean and no racial slurs. We do not want anyone bringing any arguments from other blogs to this blog so please keep it to a minimum. We don’t want anyone talking down anyone on another site and mentioning anyone by name, but we understand at times a certain amount of venting is required and will be allowed. However asking why another person was banned is not allowed. All that does is stir the pot. It is automatically assumed there was a good reason.
While we welcome new posters, we do not appreciate posters who are not regulars to join us and start arguments. I will ban anyone I think is doing that. Foul language or porn pictures gets them banned immediately.

I really don’t like being put in any position where it appears I am exerting any authority. SO, having said that I’m going to modify the NO CUT AND PASTE policy. Comments are welcome, links are welcome, BUT repeated cutting and pasting more than one paragraph are not welcome. I would like you to moderate yourself and I’m taking the MOD SQUAD out of the loop. BUT, Moderators are allowed to remove any additional paragraphs without any prior notice, so please don’t ramble on.
I’m asking you to monitor yourself, please work with us.

Moderators will not referee any conversations between any of you nor will they make any judgement except for Porn and blatant use of Foul Language. Moderators may not use the word “Warning” at any time.

_______________________________

THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE SITE SO CONSERVATIVE’S MAY DISCUSS CONSERVATIVE IDEAS AND CONSERVATIVE VALUES. WE CAN DISAGREE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, BUT BASHING HIM FOR BASHING’S SAKE WON’T BE TOLERATED.

LIBERAL’S MAY POST AT YOUR OWN RISK, BUT WILL NOT BE WELCOME IF ALL YOU DO IS ACT LIBERAL

Global Warming Video

SNARK CHART

Funny, F 1-10

Mean, M 1-10

Gushy G 1-10

Violins V 1-10

Truth, T 1-10

Agree A, 1-10

Disagree, D 1-10

Why the Left Lies

I. Credibility

All Lies are designed to seem true. The expert liar carefully uses elements that seem probable and logical and are therefore easy to believe. On the other hand, The Truth is often illogical, wildly improbable and hard to explain.

Lies are more believable than The Truth.

II. Reliability

The Truth is spontaneous, accidental and unpredictable. Lies, however, can be planned in detail long in advance and are thus guaranteed to turn out as predicted.

Lies are more dependable than The Truth.

III. Economy

To be The Truth, an account of a given event must be com­pletely accurate. This requires painstaking resourcefulness, expen­sive research, time-consuming attention to detail, complex logistics and thoroughness. In spite of all that, some people will believe it and others will not. A Lie will produce identical results without all the fuss and bother.

Lies are simpler than Truth; Lies cost less than Truth in time, money and effort.

IV. Value

The Truth can be found anywhere; it belongs to anybody who finds it, absolutely free. Lies are custom-made, often by experts, and the best ones are highly polished works of art.

Lies are worth more money than Truth. Have you ever heard of anybody bribing a witness to tell The Truth?

V. Respectability

a. Great fortunes have been made by selling Lies to the pub­lic. The people who sell these Lies are often grateful to the gullible consumers, so they endow libraries and universities and cultural centers.

b. Nobody ever made a fortune selling The Truth. First of all, as already stated, The Truth is free. The only people who will pay money for The Truth are people who are being blackmailed-and they are only buying The Truth so they can hide it before anybody else sees it.

Lies lead to libraries and universities, while The Truth leads to blackmail.

VI.Stability

Take one thousand parts Truth, add one part Lie. Result: a Lie.

Take one-thousandth part Lie, add one part Truth. Result: again, a Lie.

Note that you can make a Lie out of The Truth, but you can’t make The Truth out of a Lie.

Lies are stronger and last longer than The Truth.

VII. Imagination

In reporting The Truth, a person must research the precise facts and stick to them exactly as they occurred. The liar can report the same incident without doing any research, merely saying whatever comes to his mind and filling in the “details” according to his cause.

Lies are more creative than the Truth.

VIII. Recognizability

People are accustomed to hearing Lies all the time.

If you tell The Truth, people will think you are lying. If you convince them you are telling The Truth, they will become suspicious. Why is he suddenly telling The Truth? What’s going on?

VIX. Supply and Demand

A. In describing any given incident, only one version can possibly be The Truth, whereas the number of Lies possible is unlimited. Obviously Lies are in far greater supply than Truth.

B. There is a great demand for Lies, if they are flattering, if they build up one’s hopes, if they help one escape reality or if they promise health, wealth, power or potency. Nobody is very anxious to hear The Truth. The only people who demand The Truth are those who are investigating something (lawyers, etc.)-and they only want The Truth to prove somebody is lying.

Lies are the acceptable medium of exchange in our society. They are in good supply and the demand for them remains strong. The Truth is in extremely short supply, but even this tiny supply far exceeds the demand. Thus, in our society, Truth occupies a position identical to that of dinosaur shit.